TOK poem

Individual's Vocation

Pursuit of Reality

Seek Infallibility

discard our Emotional Propensity

for Logical Sequacity

is Ignorance Simplicity

or Moronic Complacency

Logical Fallacies Ad

Some people would watch this Audi commercial and they would think," Whoa Audis are uniquely cool;" some people rebuke the commercial's attempt to make the product look better than Lexus, but every viewer is somewhat aware of the logical fallacies that are consisted in this commercial.
The first fallacies that I noticed were poisoning the well and hasty generalization. The cinnercial hasty generalizes by showing that literally everybody has a Lexus, and it uses poisoning the well by implying that Lexus is for cookie cutters. The advertisers also use fallacies on behalf of them by making the Audi look special. They use spotlight by making a jet black Audi drive by amidst grey/silver Lexuses.They also use appeal to emotion by making only the boy with the Audi happy, unlike the sad kids with Lexuses.

What was I thinking?

In our materialistic world, there are many people secretly battling compulsive shopping. Most people can agree that their sense of reasoning is overshadowed by their fervor for shopping, and once the desire sets in for something they have to get it, despite the cost or utility. After they come back from their shopping spree, reality returns, and they end up returning half of what they splurged on, or atleast wonder what they were thinking. There are countless other situations where reality is dominated by emotions, because unreasonableness is the tragic part of human nature.

In the article, the researcher stated that people are inclined towards FREE, which is very true for almost everybody. Yet there is the timely phrase," Nothing is ever free," which should always be kept in mind. Majority of the times when something is supposedly given for free there is a catch, such as Amazon's Super Shopping Discount which has a requirement of a $25 purchase. This was a ruse devised by sly businessmen, because now careless people are spending several more bucks than the original price with shipping. The exhilaration of receiving something we do not deserve ends up being the trick that leads many people to bankruptcy.

Sometimes it is inconvenience that hinders us from making the right choices. There was a part in the article where they said that less Americans signed up for donor donations, rather than the Swedes who had to sign up to not give donors. Everything becomes a better deal when it is directly given to us; the slightest effort can convince us not to do something.

We try to defend our faulty actions by rationalization, not reason. Our rationalization can make any fallacy sound true. Human's are never consistent, even our logic. Many times our emotions make exceptions for different situations. Even people with tact and control can not always restrain from such unpremeditated desires.

FREE is one of the many words that excites our emotions. Many stores use this strategy by using,"Buy 2 for $40 and get one free," instead of " 3 for $40." This article identifies the "following your heart/gut" problem of human nature. This article shows that people make the wrong choices through impulsive and unreasonable decisions. Spontaneity may be fun, but people should always be fully aware of the consequences.

Logical Fallacies

1. Dicto Simpliciter is an argument based on unqualified generalization: Icecream is tasty, therefore everybody loves icecream.

2. Hasty Generalization is stereotyping: My caucasion friends have nice parents, so all caucasion parents are nice.

3. Post Hoc is generalization due to certain events: Everytime I wear this charm bracelet I get an A on my tests, so as long as I wear this bracelet I will always get As.

4. Contradictory Premises is when two premises contradict each other, therefore no conclusion can be drawn: You said you'll do anything for me, so you have to jump off this bridge for me.

5. Ad Misericordiam is argument that targets emotions: Why should I not go to jail? Because I have a broken leg, my cat just died, and my life already sucks.

6. False Analogy is comparing two events that have no relation with each other: My hamster does not need much attention, so dogs shouldn't be so hard to take care of.

7. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact is to create a false hypothesis, then draw conclusions from it: I am a good friend who made my friends good people. The reason for her transgression is because I am not her friend anymore.

8. Poisoning the Well is attacking a premise to make everybody emotionally veer from it: Don't trust him; I heard he cheated on his girlfriend before.

9. Fallacy of accidents is a generalization that disregards exceptions: America promises freedom, so I can freely beat up that kid.

10. Affirming the consequent is to draw conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q: People are getting sick from swine flu. John is sick. He has swine flu.

11. Denying the antecedent is to draw conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis of P equals Q: Music calms a person down. Sarah is going nuts; she hasn't been listening to music lately.

12. Fallacy of many questions is to group more that one question to form one question: Have you stopped stealing and selling drugs?

13. Appeal to Authority is to believe anything a president says or does: Obama smoked marijuana, so it is okay for everyone to smoke mj.

No to the Truman World

After Truman realizes that he is living in a conspiratory world he does whatever it takes to escape. When he is given the final ultimatum (if he would remain in the Truman Show) he leaves the world without any hesitation. The reason behind his decision was not surprising because Truman's desire for the truth was evident. It was important that Truman left the world because every second he lived in that world he was wasting his life. Truman lived in a world where everything was controlled but him. He was a victim of a social experiment created by his own kind.

While living in the world, the only thing remotely productive that he had done was entertain people with no lives in the real world. Everything was a dead-end for Truman. He worked at a job where his work was useless, and he "loved" a woman who had no intention of ever reciprocating his love. The only positive aspect of living in a false world was that Truman was immune to bankruptcy. The false world did not offer the many perks of the real world: spontaneity, individuality, privacy, authenticity, freedom to explore, and many other factors. A world without any truth has no meaning. Lies are substanceless and meaningless. It is one thing to believe a lie, but it is worse to live a lie. For thirty years, Truman was barred from anything pristine. Without any exception, I think that it was essential for Truman to live in the real world.

Without any doubts I can say that I'd rather live in the world I live in as opposed to Truman's world. Even though it was called the Caroline Show I wouldn't want to live in it. I already hate the feeling that my every move is being judged and watched when I am in public, but the idea that literally every move I make is being scrutinized is very frightening. I hate deception, but living in the show would mean that I would never experience any natural reaction from people. I already fear being mislead by people; I don't want it to be a lifestyle. Truman also does not get what he truly wants while living in that world. He does not get the girl, nor does he get to travel as he wishes, and his dad was also cruelly taken away from him. If I ever choose the artificial world over the real world, the artificial world would atleast have to satisfy my every desire and fantasy. I do not ever want to be confined to anything. The real world isn't that big (in my opinion) but being limited to that small world is so not ambitious.

After defending the real world, my values of truth rose to the surface. If I reflect, honesty has always been valuable to me. I hate deception because it makes it harder to become vulnerable and put trust in things. If we put our trust it things we can rely, and depend upon it, which is a good feeling. Truth also has structure, and people need balance in their lives, because instablity is not good. It is hard to compeltely simplify and rationalize why I value truth, because my value for truth happens so naturally. Other things I value of the real world, that make me not want to live in the Truman world are spontaneity, privacy, and the other things I listed before.

These two worlds are as different as the two sayings," Tell me what I want to here," and, " What do you think, honestly?" From what I have observed most people see what they want to see, and a few people chase the truth. It is hard to explain why truth is so important, but it's the only thing we can depend upon. It is like a spine for the world and it needs to exist, because I don't think people can ever flourish in a world completely comprised with lies.

The Truman Show

As far as I know the real world is the world I am living in right now. Everything I see and believe is real to me, even though they may not be real. I just believe in this world, because if I can't trust my own existence, then there would be nothing to trust. I have to believe in this world or I would not feel secure or have the will to pursue anything. The world I live in right now seems very natural; nothing has happened to me to make me believe that my surroundings are artificial.

Christof said that everything is fine because Truman is content with his life, but it was obvious that Truman was not content at all. He could not get what he wanted, such as his true love; he had no privacy, and he hated being deceived by everyone. His world was insincere; and his true He let his guard down and saw the world as it was presented. The flaw with Christof's speech is that real happiness can never be legitimate without any truth.

Christof also said that Truman would seek the outside world if he really wanted to. Truman accepted the world as it is until he saw his father was alive. At that moment he realized that the things he really wanted was being purposely taken away from him, and he had hope that if he tried hard enough he could find them. As a human, he sought out the truth and to be liberated from all the restrictions. People can be content with an artificial world until they realize that they are being deceived. Truman had no idea he was being deceived until he saw his father (who he thought was dead) being dragged away from him.

Living in a world that has no substance or truth is pointless. Even if Truman's world offered everything to Truman, he probably would have chosen the real world over the false world. I don't think his world was better in any way. He didn't even get what he wanted. People and the TV directors controlled him like a puppet. They used propaganda and people he trusted to convince him to do things the TV crew wanted him to do. They even raised hydrophobia in him and "killed" his father in the process. He had no sense of freedom literally and figuratively. He was being controlled by the people, and he could not even leave the town.

I think that the show was trying to create a parallel with our world and the Truman Show World. The government would be our TV crew. The world we live in may be real, but we might be fighting for something with no substance, such as money. We might just be wasting our time and restricting ourselves from accomplishing anything that we should.

Absolute Truth

I believe that there is a fixed truth in this world. This truth is absolute, and unaffected by bias. It conflicts with opinions and perspective, so these concepts must be seperate. Opinions, bias, perspective, and anything that pertains to this category should not be considered the truth, because they are not consistent. They are just products of our senses, memories, emotions, which is never 100 percent reliable, unlike the truth. Our senses, and relating aspects, are not impervious to deception. Keen perception and discretion may see some parts of the absolute truth, but never everything, nobody is omniscient. If we state that subjective or relative truth is correct than we are saying that everything can be the truth. Lies can be considered the truth, or mind games can be considered the truth. I don't think that anything can be the truth and right. But I am not 100% confident about the absolute truth. The concept that diverts me from the absolute truth is morals. I can not confidently state that the world was created with a certain set of morals. Humans are never sure what is right or wrong, so they rely on their religion to guide them. Our transgressions might be a part of life and is just a natural process that can't be avoided. Morals may be absolute, but if it is, is it Christianity, Buddhist, Muslim, or can it be subjective? I can not fully support absolute truth with a subjective perspective. But I am sure that there is an absolute truth in the world that pertains to "what happened" and "how it happened".

Subjective truth is a belief that whatever an individual believes or thinks is right. It is saying that every ounce of imagination processing in the trillions of people living on this planet is true, and that any lie can be considered the truth. I don't believe that anything can be the truth. At a party, a girl may unknowingly spill a drink on her shirt, but thinks that the boy next to her spilled it. Everybody at the party saw that she spilled the drink, but the girl might refuse to accept what really happened and say that the boy did it. And an example of how it happened, could be gravity. Some people would believe in the theory of relativity, or people could traditionally believe in just Newton's theory, and some may believe something they came up with their own mind. We can't say everything is right. Maybe gravity works partly from the idea of theory of relativity and partly about Newton's theory; maybe it is none of these; the truth of gravity may be a knowledge in the universe that humans have not acquired or established.

Relative truth is the truth that relies on the generation. The concept is similar to subjective, but it relies on a broader perspective. I can not fully believe in the relative truth because of periods of slavery and feminist restraints. Before the 1900s women were not allowed to vote, because men was still seen as our superiors. I can not agree that as a truth it was a justifiable thing to do.

It is difficult for people to decide what is the real truth, because we have been taught countless fallacies and multifolds of opinions. I believe there is an absolute truth in a certain area. I still can not fathom how it can work in every angle, but I am trying to understand what is the truth.

Second-Hand Knowledge

Knowledge is aquired, significantly through communication. The five primary sources are cultural tradition, school, the internet, expert opinion, and the news media. These knowledge sources are achieved through a portal called language, and are second-hand sources. All five of these sources allow us to view the world in a broader perspective, and restrains us from stifling ourselves with only our bias. Although people must be cautious not to fall in to authority worship. We must use our own keen perceptions, and practical judgement to tackle what we choose to accept as true. The things we hear should be backed up with authentic proof.

Cultural tradition is what people are first exposed to when they are infants. Our family, home, and setting influence how we grow up, in our most vulnerable time of our life. When we are babies we are pursuing to create a gateway of communication. Culture is our first foundation, and as we get older we are exposed to it more. It is the key difference between a baby born in Africa, and a baby born in America. Next there is a greater difference between an African baby born in Africa, and a Chinese baby born in America. Then the religion of the family. It is necessary for people to have some culture, and understanding their own roots.

The bad thing about culture is that there are many cultures and each one is built up with biased beliefs and different perspectives. It is easy for people to blindly follow their familie's opinions and habits. People must use their discretion and not allow discrimination from influencing the culture that we live by.

School is also a major source of our knowledge. Everybody is expected to get an education in the majority of the countries. The schools in each area are required to follow a single curricula, making student's education universal. It is good in a way that everybody has the same foundation, and that is fair by giving everyone a chance to be well-informed, and given the opportunity to succeed.

Unfortunately, school is very biased. The textbook is taught by a teacher; both of which are biased. The government also gets involved and has the power to control what is taught in the school; essentially public school. A controversial topic is Darwinism. Evolution is taught as true, but Christianity, and other religions are just taught as ideologies. To avoid getting bad grades, we are forced to comply with something that does not have enough evidence to convice. We are taught supporting evidences of Darwinism, but not taught about the countless evidences that disprove it.

The internet is something that has been influencing our lives very recently. It wasn't decades after 1950 when individuals were introduced to one of the most significant factors of globalization. School may be limited to teaching a specific area, but the internet has the power to teach everybody from around the world. It is a great invention because communication became much simpler, and nearly every answer to our burning questions are at our fingertips.

People with a PhD seem to have more credibility than a person who barely finished high school. People rely on people who had more education because they are tagged to have a broader knowledge of the world. They may have gotten more formal education but these people are biased and make mistakes too. An example was when the Senator Joseph R. McCarthy convinced people that a certain person was a communist spy. He didn't even have authentic evidence, but people believed him and completely ruined the man who was (later found) wrongly accused. We must not quickly believe people with educational degrees or a self-claimed professional because even these people are people. They have selfish desires, wrong intentions, and gain wrong information.

News Media is usually accepted as true. Reporters and news journalists broadcasts things that seem to be controversial or scandalous, to gain viewers. They have the power to hype a certain topic, that may be false or not even important. They could also lessen the importance of something that could hurt their reputation or a person or group the news station supports. A news station may also support a certain political idea, such as liberalism and conseratism. They also limit us because they typically broadcast news in the area. It does have its positive points, such that people are informed on what is going on (even though it may be limited).

Another form of cultural tradion is societal conventions: things we are taught to be true. Because people are social creatures, we are easily influenced by what is constantly taught to us. These societal traditions may not be reasonable, hence it is our duty to utilize our civil rights to change bad traditions. Many people do their best to conform to social-norms and the government. There are many historical evidences of faulty ideologies that people were convinced to believe, such as rascism towards colored people, and women being the subordinates of men. Many people complained about it but still conformed to it, but there were the many advocates, and few innovators that actually took a stand and made the world a more just place.

"Is Google Really Making Us Stupid?"

It is true that Google, and other search engines have made the 21st Centurians lazier. It is another question to ask if it made people stupider. The question that Carr made me think was if convenience correlates with stupidity.

From my experience, I think that the web has made me stupider, in the sense that I can't concentrate anymore. I'm sure that this problem relates to almost all of my peers. We still have our childhood to rely on our concentration, but it is likely that the next generation would be exposed to internet much earlier.

People are highly influenced by what they see or read. Many people believe in what they read, whether it is a book, or a web article. But it much easier for deceivers to put a lie on the internet. The internet gives up-to-date knowledge to the individuals, but there are also many fallacies circulating on the internet. Information on sites like WIkipedia can be completely wrong, but people are vulnerable to believe them. People are gullible, and the web is lurking with predators who want trick them.

The two obvious problems derived from internet, is lack of concentration and being prone to misleading information. I am still very hesitant in believing that Google has made me stupider, because it has introduced me to many things I would have never known or read, if it wasn't for the internet. Because of the internet, I am partially aware of what is going on, because of Yahoo News headlines. And all the correct information given on the internet has really helped me. When I am concerned of my health I read several articles on how to stay healthy and lose weight. If I have a burning question that is bugging me, I can later look it up on the internet. It is hard to say that this information station has made me stupider. It just made me lazier. I do read full-length articles online, and reading online makes me love reading books more. Although I can hardly get to reading, because I'm on the internet, the internet has made me learn to aprecciate books. I go back to a book, feeling that it is more hands-on then the internet. Sites like dictionary.com has taught me a substantial amount of vocabulary words, and I know I that it has not misleaded me.

Overall, I can't agree with Carr's statement, but I do agree with him on the idea that Google has made the world so much lazier.

Things We Think We Know Reflection

Stereotypying is in our blood. It is nearly impossible to go a day without judging something or someone. It is almost essential, because everybody really enjoys sterotyping and people tend to bond through criticism. This article talks about illogical conclusions derived from being prejudice, it also specifies the rascism of people in the country. Many countries stereotype Americans to be fat, classless simpletons, but that is slightly true. America may win an award for breeding the most obese people, but these people make up less than 1/3 of the country. It is evident that almost every other caucasion country views America very lowly, stereotyping but technically true.

Many Europeans who haven't been to America see Americans as either cowboys or fat people. These people hear from outside sources about America and they believe everything they hear. They haven't been to America for themselves, so they base their thoughts on the media, school, and communication. The idea that Americans are all cowboys, or fat, is a well-known myth. It is a myth that became the truth to the majority of the Europeans. I've gained the bias that Europeans and Australians don't like Americans, because of different factors. One of the determining factors was the article: "Think We Think We Know" and another was my interaction with an Australian. I've had an Australian penpal named Toby since I was in middle school. He complained to me about Americans like I wasn't an American. It was very interesting that he got those biases when I was the first American person he talked to and the fact that he had never left his country.

The last sentence of the article says that the man did not know anything about Germany, after he came back from touring the country. It is hard to imagine a world where all answers were like that. That answer killed the mood where the conversation was headed towards. Without discrimination, there would be a lot more awkward silences. But I think exchanging discrimation for peace and unity is a good deal (it is just an ideal).

As I was reading the article, I started to remember my many encounters with discrimination. In public school there were a group of students (of Mexican descent) who sat around me. I never talked to them but they would always joke about how I was Asian. Before they heard me talk they assumed that I would be nerdy, shy, and lame. I was annoyed by them but it was hypocritical of me because I quickly assumed that they were crude and ghetto. People are typically shallow and have the problem of easily accepting popular belief. People can also gain a bias through experiences and emotions. The kids who sat around me may have been prejudiced against me because they may have had a bad experience with a certain Asian person. Those bad emotions can carry onto further encounters with other Asian people.

Truth v Truth

I believe that to a certain extent there is truth. The two truths that I am aware of is The Truth and my truth. The Truth is everything that can be logically justified. The Truth is not anything emotional, and is not made up of any biasses. However my truth is different; it can be partial and it is different for each individual. The Truth may be pristine but my truth is consisted of countless fallacies. My truth is in the complete possession of the individual and it is built up with what the person knows and believes. My truth is very ambiguous and also has many errors. People easily believe what they hear, and it becomes part of their my truth. The fallacies that they hold true can not be the Truth. The problem with truth is that it has a domino effect. If somebody lies and it becomes a rumor that everyone believes, everyone will hold a faulty my truth. Parts of my truth can also be considered the Truth. Many truths can be lost in time, if they aren't recorded. Some of my truth can be the Truth but the majority is biased so it can't be considered the Truth. The reason why biasses can not be considered the truth is because it can not be factual.

The catch of Truth is that nobody really knows what is the Truth. Nobody is 100% sure of anything they haven't experienced. The people who claim to wholeheartedly hold onto a belief can easily feel doubts, if adequately convinced by another. Because people are not omniscient, we must rely on our faith and outside sources to decide what is considered their my truth.

The Truth is truly complex and the knowledge that people have acquired of all truths is very infinitesimal. There are many truths that haven't been discovered, or not accepted to be true. People can only know the truth that is taught to us, or that we have seen. But the things we have seen is an insignificant amount.

These two types of truths are easily confused. It is important to differentiate the Truth and a faulty my truth. Many times we have no access to the real truth but we are given the ability to deliberate and rationalize. There are complications between people; everybody has their own set of my truths. If everybody knew the Truth, disagreement would surely be ceased.

Tree Philosophy/Origin of Knowledge

A certain philosopher inquired," If a tree falls in a forest, nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" Academically speaking, the answer could be either yes and no, it is just a matter of interpretation. According to dictionary.com, there is a multifold of definitions for sound; there are two definitions that directly satiates the query, of which are," 1. The sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium; 5.any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance." The first one would support the answer, yes, because if a tree falls in a forest, a vibration is exerted. However the fifth one can consolidate for the answer, no, because it states that sound is something that is heard. Emotionally, when I hear this question, I automatically say YES. I was thinking of the idea of definition 1 but I did not know how to express in words because I didn't understand the scientific reasoning of it and the determined meaning of sound. The questions we ask ourselves are shaped by language, which was just created over time by a human being. The knowledge that we stir up by ourselves is not considered reliable, people only believe us if there is an actual definition or theory. Because humans are social creatures, our way of expression is reshaped by society and education.

There is an unquestionable, perpetual breadth of knowledge that is derived from within which justifies originality and pristine creativity. If people did not own innate, predisposed knowledge there would never be new inventions. People utilize their education to assist their primary knowledge. Knowledge is synthetically formed from both the inside and the outside. However every form of education was created by an instinctive knowledge.

Three things I would like to re-question the truth of...

There are many aspects in my life that I have been told to question in my life. Sometimes I tend to question things myself, without any prior warning. I believe that people naturally inherit discernment, but we are also easily influenced, and can be raised to believe things that are too hard to discern from right and wrong. As I got older, I naturally began to question more things, which made life much more complicated and more depressing for me. In reality, the many “truths” we were fostered to respect and adulate are not as pristine as we once saw. With age, we start to see the less obvious truths as they really are. Quickly I was able to dismiss the ideology of Santa Claus, because I decided for myself that he is not real, when he brought me only Korean things. These situations may be the reason why people created the word, “obvious”.

In my life, one of my greatest struggles was being a faithful Christian. By the time I was in middle school and really started reading the Bible for myself, I felt really guilty because I thought the Bible was made up of fictional stories. Even from Genesis. Despite my many struggles, my belief for God has been fortified. I do try hard to believe the Bible, but at many times its hard, so I just force myself to accept it. Now I think it is time for me to stop forcing myself to believe Christianity, but to actually read the Bible (not just one verse every month) and discern if I can accept it as the truth. Bible is a collection of people’s perspectives of God’s words, and it has been around for a long time, and also has been translated many times. In this long period of time, it is highly likely that it has been touched and rewritten by the wrong hands. Maybe if I read the Bible, I can come to understand that it may be the truth. I also didn’t read The DaVinci Code because I was told that it was blasphemous, but maybe if I read it I can see the truth of the Bible from another perspective.

Another thing I would like to question is the news. I am guilty of being gullible at many times. I also gained the ideology, since I was a child, that the news offers the information on events. It is never taught to children that it is not just the information station, but many corporations exploit for power. I would like to watch the news more, and question what is being said by an anchor who just reads off the teleprompter.

There is one thing that is my true enigma. I try the hardest to understand it but I still don’t even know the half of my mind. It is really ironic that I don’t even know my true thoughts. The problem with me is that my conscious mind constantly lies to my subconscious mind. I want to be able to decipher which of my thoughts are lies and which are the truth, and what I really think.

I would like to go deeper and uncover the truth of these three things.

In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, all of the men agree that the boy is not guilty. There is a total shift of emotion among all 12 of the jurors, since the start of the movie and the end of the movie. Each one of them took a different passage towards the decision they believed was the truth. The old man who supported the boy from the start was able to change the fate of the boy, because he thought beyond the surface information, and owned his facts.

The jurors who were unstable with their choice, such as the salesman, did not think out the case for themselves. Each time a person stated their reasonable opinions, the salesman would quickly take the side of the person who gave good, smart information. This makes me wonder if I am like that too. I realized I am not like that all the time but there are many incidents where I would blankly follow another’s opinion, because I didn’t feel like thinking too deeply.

Another problem I saw with the men in the courtroom, was the last man to vote, “not guilty’. His emotions, experiences, and obstinacies hindered him from voting on what seemed the most true. He gripped on to his first vote because he was engulfed with anger and bitter scorn. It is evident that the man is very bitter, but it is hard to see what had made him to become so negative. His bitterness was deeply rooted in his subconscious mind that even he didn’t know he was inclining for the worst for the boy. It wasn’t until he was under pressure that he was able to let out the adversities that were haunting his emotions. This is a quality that I can relate with, because I sometimes refuse to believe the truth, just because the lies seem easier to cope with.

It is really hard to accept something we cannot see, but there is way too much we haven’t seen, aren't seeing, or won't see in the future. It is up to our innate intelligence, perception, and reasoning to decipher the wrongs and rights. The first man to vote the boy not guilty symbolized reason. He created his own opinions after hearing the witnesses testify against the boy. Perhaps the boy did not kill his father, thanks to the old man, he would not face injustice. My life, as well as other individuals, must obtain a keen sense of reasoning because it can offer us reality.

TOK: 12 Angry Men Reflection 2

9/17/09

The second half of the movie exposed each person’s personality and motives a lot more. It was evident that the majority of the jury makes a decision based on what they hear. They must be fed with the logical reasoning made by other people, to decide on their decision. They dare not to think the situation through for themselves. The group is fickle and easily influenced, so when the old man gives several examples that the boy might not be guilty, half of the jury change their minds. Yet at first they are reluctant to accept the old man’s reasoning, because they stubbornly hold on to their original, emotional disposition.

TOK: 12 Angry Men Reflection 1

TOK Reflection: 12 Angry Men 9/16/09

The movie was basically about twelve men trying to decide on one decision for a court case. The majority of the people jumped to conclusions that the boy was guilty. It was a life or death situation and the people were being ignorant and quick to blame the boy and their only “truth” was their own emotional inclination and the voice of the witnesses. By the body language and facial expressions, it seemed like some of the people said the boy was guilty because everyone else thought that, and some other people just wanted to resolve the trial quickly. Most of the older men were the ones willing to discuss the trial. The rest of the trial, which was made up of younger male adults, seemed to lack the patience or wisdom of the older men in the group.